As trivial as the Obama-eats-dogs and composite-girlfriend memes might seem, they actually speak to a deeper issue. At the Telegraph, Tim Stanley argues:
What stands out from the composite story isn’t that Obama amalgamated characters, it’s that the press hadn’t noticed until now. As with the dog story, this confirms the suspicion that the mainstream media gave Obama a free pass in 2008 and declined to check too deeply into his background. Even The Atlantic’s [David] Graham admits that he’s never read Dreams From My Father, and neither, it would seem, has anyone else in the press corps. They have the excuse that the book is incredibly narcissistic and boring, but otherwise isn’t this exactly the sort of character assessment/assassination that should have happened four years ago? …
And yet we knew everything there was to know about Sarah Palin, despite the fact that she was in the race for a much shorter space of time than Obama – and only running for veep.
This election, the Romney campaign is not going to be broaching the issue of Obama’s past, so unless the press brings up these stories, they won’t be discussed. Republicans are intent on running against Obama’s record, not his personal background, and it’s obvious why. Conservatives might find Obama’s past radical associations horrifying, but these stories have never been very successful at informing public opinion about the president. And some of the nuttier conspiracy theories about Obama’s past, particularly the birther movement, have actually been politically helpful for him. The president and his staff elevated the birther nonsense last spring, and his campaign even fundraised off of it.
In contrast, the White House is reportedly uneasy about the upcoming David Maraniss book. Because Maraniss is not a conservative, his reporting can’t be easily dismissed, and his book threatens to undermine the life narrative crafted by the Obama campaign. Politico reports:
The success of Dreams has given Obama nearly complete control of his own life narrative, an appealing tale that has been the foundation of his political success. But Maraniss’s biography threatens that narrative by questioning it: Was Obama’s journey entirely spiritual and intellectual? Or was it also grounded in the lower realms of ambition and calculation? …
There are some signs the president himself is concerned. In fact, Obama was so intent on having his side of the story convincingly articulated, he granted the author a virtually unprecedented 90-minute Oval Office interview, twice the allotted time Maraniss thought he was getting.
The brief excerpt from the book in Vanity Fair suggests that this will be the first serious, mainstream examination of Obama’s younger years, and a very compelling one at that. I’m not under any illusions that Maraniss will provide a full vetting of Obama in his book, which will likely be sympathetic to the president. But the fact that Maraniss has uncovered basic, and fascinating details of Obama’s life that were previously glossed over by the rest of the media, may at least prod other reporters into doing their jobs.
Wishful thinking, the only reporters who will look deeper are those that have integrity, a characteristic the Propaganda Press left at the door years ago. Now ask them to enter the "have dinner with Obama" contest and they're all in.
Many well meaning—and intimidated Washington, DC area conservatives refused to even consider Jack Cashill's devastating arguments that Barack Obama did not author those two books. He was not given the time of day in 2008. We now mostly take it for granted that a ghost writer was chosen to complete the projects. Obama and his backers took advantage of the race card.
"Republicans are intent on running against Obama’s record, not his personal background…" n noh goody, so we're going to lose again! n nsorry to disagree Alana, but you're just 100% wrong. Republicans MUST bring up Obama's past–not the dog-eating part but the relevant parts. n nlike for instance: let's see his college transcripts. like for instance, let's hear what he said to Rashid Khalidi about Palestine and Israel that he doesn't want us to hear. like for instance, let's ask him how he could possibly have sat in Rev. Wright's pews for 20 years and "not notice" that the guy was a raving anti-Semitic loon. n nfor starters.
The mainstream media will continue to take what it considers the high ground in regard to Obama's shadowy background. David Axelrod will point to where the high ground may be found.
I am thinking "Nixon, 1972" — re-elected and then impeached. Never forget that Nixon won 49 states in 1972 — everything but DC & MA — and less than two years later, resigned the Presidency when both impeachment and conviction were inevitable.
Given 3 years of job performance as President to work with, I would thing looking at Obama's background now is silly. Frankly 4 years of" Bill Ayers this", and "Bill Ayers that" is more than enough. You don't have to read between the lines of decades old script or ponder tea leaves to discern what Obama would do as President.